Our opinions are not ebt bro the pali commentators opinions were earlier than ours, they are more ebt than ours
Nibbana is a direct experience outside the ALL therefore cannot be considered as a self. It is that which experiences it!
Unconditioned:
Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the unconditioned. What three? No arising is seen, no vanishing is seen, and no alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the unconditioned.
Permanent and waiting for you to see it for yourself.
2 Likes
Part of the ideology of EBT movement like this forum is that we want to try to see the suttas without being overly influenced by the lens of the commentaries, Abhidhamma and all later works, as much as possible.
Itâs because some of these later works has contradiction with the suttas in some places that itâs good to have some fresh look at the suttas, do comparative studies and so on to try to recover the original Buddhism as much as possible. Of course, during the process of EBT reading, sometimes some people may have extreme views, and some others disagree. Commentaries can help as an example of what the ancients think of the same texts we all read, but doesnât have to be binding, as the few examples of contradiction with sutta shows that itâs not 100% reliable.
Those movements which would claim that commentaries can overwrite the suttas, we should trust in the commentaries 100% is called traditional Theravada, so itâs cool to advocate such a position of relying on commentaries in Theravada forum.
Please mention one case where the commentaries and sub-commentaries contradicts the sutta
My position is that earlier commentators are ebt proponents while we are lbt proponents therefore we must not invent new ideas and instead use existing ideas, instead of making assumptions about suttas we must use existing assumptions by earlier pali commentators, we have no right to claim we are better than earlier pali commentators in interpretating suttas we should not think earlier commentators never thought about our assumption obviously they consider it but for some reason they didnât accommodate it because they thought our assumptions conflict with what the Buddha said
1 case where we can disagree with earlier commentators is where the sutta explicitly said âeye needs to be abandonedâ but the commentary said itâs the greed for eye not the eye itself that needs to be abandoned, you see that even explicit sutta like that can be wrongly interpreted if we donât use commentaries let alone implicit dense suttas
So please mention 1 case where the earlier commentators disagrees with us
Both earlier pali commentators and late English commentators like us think that only our assumption comply with what the Buddha said while others are wrong but because truth is only one therefore either early commentators or late commentators are right, it canât be both
Now of course I want earlier commentators to be proved wrong but the living meditation tradition was cut off at 12 ce onward therefore all teachers since 12 ce didnât practice meditation while earliest meditators since 12 ce was ajahn mun at 19 ce who practiced not according to what his teacher and buddha said due to broken lineage but he invented his own technique which was followed by ajahn chah and later ajahn brahm while living masters at 11 ce and earlier practiced their teacher instructions which can be traced back to the buddha due to unbroken lineage due to this fact for practicality sub-commentaries is very useful because of its explicit nature because we canât argue that we know better about meditation and theory than living masters at 12 ce and earlier whose lineage could still be traced back to earlier,second,third and later generation arahants, now obviously there are arahants every generation and if they disagree with commentaries and sub commentaries they will write their own pali commentaries and sub commentaries at that very time thus even though some sub commentaries and sub sub commentaries were wrong views others were not because these others were written especially to refute wrong teachings in other sub commentaries
Could you provide a source or more context for this claim?
1 Like
According to Buswell, by the 10th century vipassana was no longer practiced in the Theravada tradition, due to the belief that Buddhism had degenerated, and that liberation was no longer attainable until the coming of Maitreya.[6] According to Braun, âthe majority of Theravadins and dedicated Buddhists of other traditions, including monks and nuns, have focused on cultivating moral behavior, preserving the Buddhaâs teachings (dharma), and acquiring the good karma that comes from generous giving.â[web 1] Southern Esoteric Buddhist practices were widespread in the whole Theravadin world before being replaced by the Vipassana movement.
The interest in meditation was re-awakened in Myanmar (Burma) in the 18th century by Medawi (1728â1816),
1 Like
When your experiencing NibbÄna and seeing things as they really are? Are you also seeing how you really are? How should that moment be? Your seeing the body-mind real nature?
I think we should just see the meaning. And try to be like Buddha. When they called him Magician.
Experiencing NibbÄna the person becomes truly Happy. Experiencing NibbÄna is the Highest Happiness. So is there is a lowest happiness, the happiness of the body-mind? Thinking in terms of I am. Then the Highest Happiness is not thinking in terms of I am.
Where what Buddha called Higher Mind thatâs what we as Buddhist should consider Higher Self. Not as people see it. As soul. But understand meaning. Like Jhana is possible because the mind has the capacity to go into it already.
the four jhÄnas that constitute the higher mind and are pleasant dwellings in this very life
https://suttacentral.net/an10.8/en/bodhi
Buddha taught us how to adapt very good in sutta.
2 Likes